Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

[Satchmo Distel]

Consider this: Croatia settled for 3-1 against Ireland, thinking a 2 goal margin was a good result. It's now obvious that a half-decent Italy should score at least a 3-0 against an Ireland in disarray. Is that really fair on Croatia, who were just unlucky to play the crap team first, before the dam totally burst?

Similarly, Brazil were entitled to believe that 3-0 against Peru was enough in 1978.

[scratchmonkey]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

Well, in the Euros head-to-head is the first tie-breaker, so if it winds up with just Croatia and Italy level on points, it's fair to say "well, you should have beat Italy then", isn't it?

[Janik]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

Seeing as goal difference is way down the list of tie-breakers, why ask the question? Russia had the only positive goal difference in Group A, and yet they are out despite finishing level on points with Greece. Running up more goals on the Czech Rep in the last ten minutes, as they could have done, wouldn't have changed anything.

[Satchmo Distel]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

Surely it's only second in the list of tiebreakers? Spain and Croatia draw 1-1, Italy wins 4-1, Italy go through. Even 3-1 is enough as (IIRC) Italy are higher in the rankings.

[scratchmonkey]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

....

[Cesar Rodriguez]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

Scratchmonkey wrote: Well, in the Euros head-to-head is the first tie-breaker, so if it winds up with just Croatia and Italy level on points, it's fair to say "well, you should have beat Italy then", isn't it?

Indeed, at least the team eliminated on goal difference can console themselves that they had an opportunity, fair and square, to defeat the team they were level on points with.

I must say I'm really glad that they are using head to head as the primary tiebreaker in these championships. Its always struck me as being a more reliable metric than goal difference which, as satchmo points out tends to reward the side that puts the most goals past the weakest team(s). I'd like to see it adopted as the first tiebreaker in the Premier League.

[G-Man]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

I have no sympathy for the argument that Croatia would be hard done by if they settled for a 3-1. Their job was to score as many goals as they can, knowing that goal difference could be a factor.

If they cheerfully sat back and thought that at 3-1 they needn't do more, then tough luck to them if they go out. And if they couldn't do better than 3-1, and the other teams could, then they can have no complaints.

[Duncan Gardner]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

Goal difference is a fairer criterion than head to head- it takes account of all of three of a team's matches in the round robin, rather than just one or two of them.

[anton pulisov]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

We're all assuming here that Croatia settled for 3-1.

[G-Man]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

"And if they couldn't do better than 3-1, and the other teams could, then they can have no complaints" would indicate that not all of us do.

[N est à?]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

Yeah, poor though REP have been, it's pretty disrespectful to imagine that Croatia could have banged in 6 or 7 if they'd felt like it, and must be rueing that now. My guess is they are still pretty pleased at the 3-1 win as it was a good result: it started their campaign nicely with a confidence building win. And you know, a bird in the hand and all that- Croatia have the win against Ireland, Italy don't, as yet.

(Goal difference can only be a factor if SPA-CRO is 1-1 or 0-0, right?)

[Satchmo Distel]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

I think Croatia go out if it's 0-0 and Italy win 3-1 or better.

[Leon Tricker]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

Elano Tele Romeu Ramires wrote:
I must say I'm really glad that they are using head to head as the primary tiebreaker in these championships. Its always struck me as being a more reliable metric than goal difference which, as satchmo points out tends to reward the side that puts the most goals past the weakest team(s). I'd like to see it adopted as the first tiebreaker in the Premier League.

On the Premier League point, if Man Utd had won the title on goal difference last season it would have seemed wrong to me, given that City had beaten them twice in the competition.

To determine who is the better of two teams it seems to me fairer to look at how they perform against each other, as opposed to how they perform against other teams.

[Guest]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

It seems legitimate enough to me that global goal difference is used in a big season-long competition like the Premier League, whereas private goal difference is used in a little quickfire tournament like the Euros.

[Dalef65]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

The reason why goal difference isnt being used is precisely to prevent a situation where Team-already-out(Ireland) throw in the towel and Team-needing-to-qualify(Italy) know precisely how many goals they need to bang past them in order to secure said qualification.

Its the exact same reason why the 3rd round of games are played simultaneously if you think about it..

Good thinking by UEFA to use head to head in my book ....

As someone else said.. cant see why the question is being asked...

[Cal Alamein]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

Well said Dalef.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

Is Goal Difference Really A Fair Method?

On the Premier League point, if Man Utd had won the title on goal difference last season it would have seemed wrong to me, given that City had beaten them twice in the competition.

If Man Utd had won the title on POINTS last season it would have seemed wrong to me, given that City had beaten them twice in the competition (and in possibly the two most notable games of the entire campaign) ....